stanford vs. ivy (HYP) admission

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
61

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, to give an idea why it could be another way, many individuals out there hate the SAT, and there is controversy as to how valuable it is in the application process. People from much longer ago (who have grandchildren now) have told me that in their time, SATs were really, really important, and the “smart math kids” often had the highest SAT I’s. In today’s day and age though, many more people study hard, AP tests are probably being more widely taken, and there are too many measures of academic proficiency other than the SAT, which seem to be better ones. Combine this with the fact that many of us don’t believe there is a simple way to measure “raw talent” in a test – after all, there are various kinds of raw talent. </p>

<p>So it’s very conceivable that after an applicant demonstrates decent proficiency in the SAT, it is no longer considered valuable enough that it’d actually change a decision. Sure, a 2400 may cut someone some slack, and it also may not. HYPS do not weight all parts of the application equally, at least I don’t think they make any guarantee of that. Perhaps in the case of some public schools, Rtgrove, your statement would be true – many punch a lot of factors like essays, ECs, academics, SATs, as scores into some calculation to get a final score for the applicant. In this case, indeed a higher SAT would have a direct correlation with higher acceptance chance, but I don’t think so with HYPS.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Now as a note: I do not know to what extent there is discrimination, so please spare me angry remarks, but I do want to make a comment. </p>

<p>A poster made the argument in another thread that Asians may have an advantage because they are culturally taught to study hard, and thus, schools will look outside of the Asian pool for talent as it manifests outside of this cultural influence. </p>

<p>These sorts of arguments make my stomach churn. Basically that suggests redefining “talent” to be something you can gauge without all the accomplishments Asians often have, which is a pretty shaky hope at best, and essentially tries to level the playing field in a silly way.</p>

62

<p>Mathboy-</p>

<p>Hmm well I dont think we can say absolutely whether or not my view or your view of how the SAT is weighted can be proven. I guess my view just makes sense to me…but your view is logical. However, I will say this. I think you agreed with me previously that HYP are more “academically oriented” than say S. So, I still have to believe that they do value the SAT more than say awards, making it less likely that they have a threshold score.</p>

<p>I guess we wont debate AA. I hate it and im not Asian (white), but I will spare you my “angery” comments.</p>

63

<p>^I should have qualified what I said about the threshold. It’s not a threshold in that there is a set number and anyone below this is not considered. However, there is a general range when other factors become significantly more important. And after this general range is passed, test scores will not keep you out of the school. This doesn’t really apply to less selective schools, but really just the top few. </p>

<p>And I don’t think the SAT is more important than awards, but this really depends. Are these awards honor roll, top AMC scorer, or science olympiad gold medalist? I’d rather have a 2100 on the SAT and win two significant national medals than have a 2380 and just get honor roll. There is a lot more potential with awards as well, and you can really differentiate yourself with a top award. However, with the SAT, no matter what, there will always be someone with the same or higher score than you applying. </p>

<p>At least at my former HS, Stanford is the most academically oriented school to get into (even Caltech accepted a marginal student, which is put nicely, this year and passed over a few top ones). Princeton is probably tied with Stanford, actually. Harvard and Yale seem to love athletes (decent, not great students) from my HS, though. And Harvard seems to have a bias towards future leaders, not necessarily the best students.</p>

64

<p>Rtgrove – to be clear, I don’t necessarily disagree with your view on the SAT, just was presenting why a higher SAT may not necessarily mean at all a better chance at admission. What really is the truth, perhaps we’ll never know. I’m not sure about Y and P, but the trends I have seen, both personally, on CC, and also my view of what the H application looks like, would have me believe it is, of HYPS, the school that someone with lots of academic talent, high SATs, val status, and perhaps less than insane ECs can would be most likely to make it into. Then again, GammaGrozza’s old high school seems to have indicated otherwise. So it’s hard to say. I did agree with you at the very least, though, that S’s application has essays that are basically personal questions, and plenty of such stuff that tells me they’re looking at lots other than talent, whether in academics or athletics. And my instinct does say don’t apply SCEA to S, especially now that you’ve said your heart is mainly in academics, and you honestly do not actually like ECs (I feel the same by the way). You can of course look at HYP, but also at other schools. What major would you most likely go into? </p>

<p>I’ve said it before, and I guess will iterate – you seem to indicate you’re primarily into academics, and did ECs mainly to stay competitive. I basically was like you back in the day, so I’ll emphasize that you think of which schools outside of HYPS will provide you the best academic setting and resources for you to succeed. This can include other Ivy Leagues, top public schools, and top LACs, many of which may be less arbitrary with admissions. Even if something about the undergraduate environment at HYPS is special to you, at the very least I’m sure you’d like to have the same opportunity to do high level academic work wherever you end up. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Funnily, while I think relatively highly of Caltech’s admissions practices, I have to agree this has happened in a friend’s school. However, the magic thing for Caltech is math/science/engineering ECs – those can really make or break you. That and perhaps writing about them in essays. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong, I hate how it sounds too. But I know better than to debate it on CC, those threads just get ugly and useless soon!!</p>

65

<p>bluebubbles,</p>

<p>I did a search on “most selective usa colleges” and the first result was one from About.com:</p>

<p>[Most</a> Selective Colleges - List of the 20 Most Selective Colleges](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegerankings/tp/most-selective-colleges.htm]Most”>Most Selective Colleges and Universities in the U.S.)</p>

<p>I don’t know how good their data is, but the list looks reasonable. The first five were:</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard - 8.8%</li>
<li>Yale - 8.9%</li>
<li>Princeton - 9.7%</li>
<li>Olin College - 10.2%</li>
<li>Stanford - 10.3%</li>
</ol>

<p>The only surprise here is Olin College at #4</p>

66

<p>Turpial: That is 2007 data. For this year, the admit rate for Stanford was 7.6% (before a final few waitlist offers are calculated). This is third lowest admit rate behind Harvard and Yale. </p>

<p>I am guessing everyone probably knows this already.</p>

67

<p>cardfan,</p>

<p>Thanks for the update. Do you have a link I can use? Even the “Best Colleges 2009” survey from the US News website still refers to Fall 2007 data.</p>

<p>[Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/lowest-acceptance-rate]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/lowest-acceptance-rate)</p>

68

<p>Data before taking people from the waitlist.</p>

<hr>

<p>Admission Rates for the Class of 2013 at Top Universities
.</p>

<p>Admitted - Applied - Admit rate(%) - EA - School
2046 29112 7.02 0 - Harvard<br>
1951 26000 7.50 0 - Yale<br>
2300 30428 7.56 0 - Stanford<br>
2150 21964 9.79 0 - Princeton<br>
2497 25428 9.82 ? - Columbia<br>
1597 15661 10.20 0 - MIT<br>
2708 24988 10.83 551 - Brown<br>
2184 18130 12.05 401 - Dartmouth<br>
3926 22939 17.11 1156 - Penn<br>
4065 23750 17.12 547 - Duke<br>
6567 34381 19.10 1249 - Cornell<br>
4318 16123 26.78 502 - Johns Hopkins<br>
3652 13280 26.80 1146 - Chicago<br>
6864 25385 27.04 1350 - Northwestern</p>

69

<p>@brendanww, anytime when I read your posts, it looks like reading the mind of an admission officer. I just want to comment several things you mentioned.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>1) Let Fitzsimmons run Harvard admission office is like let an alcoholic run the bar. However, he may not have the best taste for the wines, so the best may not be ruined. </p>

<p>2.) Purely replying on APs and SAT II may favor those from the private or magnet schools.</p>

<p>3.) For the URMs, Stanford may not have the name to compete with HYP.</p>

70

<p>It’s number 2 that really becomes a problem. I can’t comment on number 1, and I think number 3 is just false seeing as a few years ago when the data was last available Stanford’s yield amongst URMs amongst top schools was the highest- even beating out Harvard 64% to 62%. Having participated in one admit weekend and observed another, Stanford does a lot to attract highly qualified URMs who will have other great choices, and does it well. I don’t think Stanford will ever be in trouble in the near future in securing top URM talent.</p>

<p>For number 2- While I do agree SAT II’s and AP’s are more informative than SAT’s, the fact is, some kids go to school’s that don’t offer AP’s and many go to schools that can’t begin to prepare them in the slightest for these tests. Even though for the SAT’s you know that there can be a rough “statistical boost” you can give to students from high schools with lower SAT averages, for SAT II’s it would be completely arbitrary-especially since few students at not so good high schools take them. And for AP’s, they cost 85 dollars a piece, and will no doubt cost more, if CB found out Harvard and other top tiers were moving to this plan. Following through on his word would be a bad idea IMO, and would prevent many students from proving themselves in the application process. What might be better would be looking at SAT II’s and AP’s only in the case when admissions officers can deduce that one’s school prepared the student adequately for these tests. Otherwise, it will make it even tougher than now for low-income, lower opportunity, students to prove their worth in the admissions process.</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>It could be my misconception on this, but to attend Stanford, if the URM is cross-admitted by other HYPS, could be a problem. A lot of them may chase the names instead of coming to Silicon valley. A better way to do may be to admit more in the RD, rather than in SCEA. Give them a shorter time to make decisions.</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>Could you phrase this sentence more coherently? I cannot figure out if it’s a veiled ad hominem.</p>

<p>Morsmordre covered #3, so I won’t even touch that except to say I think it’s a pointless point, and thus not a point.</p>

<p>

*** Mate?</p>

<p>As for #2, it’s sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, innit? More kids take and get funding for the SAT because it is required by many schools. The SAT II’s are relatively cheap. You can take 3 subject tests for the price of one reasoning test. Not to mention, Harvard and Georgetown require that three subjects tests be taken and it’s expected from most of the ivy league that the subject tests be taken.</p>

<p>Many schools in poor areas now have state or district funds, similar to PSAT funds, so that students can take AP exams without their families having to take the burden of payment. These programs could easily be expanded if the demand for AP exams increased as a result of a change in testing requirements.</p>

<p>I am not saying both subject tests and ap exams should be required; schools could create hybrid options similar to the ACT/SAT options. Students can choose to take either two subject tests or 2 AP exams (before senior year) to fulfill a requirement. Furthermore, the test prep and cultural confidence advantage of the wealthy would go away. You can be smart and feel greatly intimidated by the SAT, but if you damn well know your elementary math, the math subject tests will be no problem. The preparation is available in every classroom across America. Same goes for APs.</p>

<p>Also, colleges are fairly adept at accounting for disproportionate opportunity. They would adapt their policies to take into account how the system inevitably privileges students of different cultures (i.e. upper class background, second-gen students).</p>

<p>The great part is that there is an additional financial incentive to take APs and SAT subject tests. For many, they can prevent the sometimes dreaded fifth year needed to graduate, help students graduate a semester early and save on tuition, or give students more room to experiment (and thus possibly saving them money that could have otherwise been spent on summer school classes).</p>

<p>Arguing that magnet or private school kids would benefit is pointless, they benefit regardless. They would potentially benefit to a lesser extent with a new system that would probably score something that is more valuable, knowledge of commonly studied subjects.</p>

<p>And Morsmordre, you seem to be missing my tone. I think that these should be used just as a basic threshold. In line with Milton Friedman, I believe that a certain amount of freedom, room for experimentation, and non-uniform methodology is needed for innovation and progress. Getting 5s on three AP exams or 750+ on two subject tests proves that a given student is intelligent enough to be developed into the intellectual the university seeks to craft. Actually, SCRATCH THAT. It shows that the student deserved the A in the class and gives the universities assurance that there wasn’t grade inflation.</p>

<p>The Universities can look at more important factors, but when in doubt for whatever reason they can take a brief glance at the SAT II or AP scores.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>I am taking back what I said.</p>

<p>

It is true when you play with the risk money, but not your life savings.</p>

<p>

Proof on this? </p>

<p>

You can just look the class rank to find out. HYPS have the profiles of many high schools.</p>

74

<p>ewho: HYPS has the profiles of many top prep schools. Looking at public suburban high schools, small schools, or any school that does not give a significant quantity of applicants it a little more tricky. GPA’s and class rank can be tricky as well. The top 25% (and this is a conservative estimate) of the private high school I went to took harder classes than the public h.s.'s valedictorian. I went to high school in rural Wisconsin though where many students ended math with algebra 2 and booster clubs received more money that field trip or science lab funds. In these parts of the country, you can be in the top of your class and score 650’s on your SAT ii’s (granted you probably won’t even take those if you are in the midwest) or a 26 on the ACT.</p>

<p>My statement on AP’s and SAT II’s revealing a student’s competence are self-evident. Furthermore, these tests only need be better and fairer indicators than the SAT. A student that does not study or work hard can more easily do well on the SAT than on an SAT II or AP test.</p>

<p>Finally, it’s not risk money. Look at my quote. After passing a certain threshold I believe it makes sense to create a diverse class because there is no statistical significance past certain points on test curves. This is really not much of a debate. All the top schools already adhere to such a policy. My argument is that there threshold is still blocking out capable students that could be identified as capable students using SAT II’s and APs.</p>

75

<p>Honestly, from my vantage point I don’t see any significant difference between Harvard admissions and Stanford admissions, other than those attributable to geography and self-selection. </p>

<p>Conflating my kids’ friends and one relative (high school classes of 2005-2009), we know six kids who went to Stanford and seven who went to Harvard. Nine of the 13 applied to both, and six of those nine were accepted at both (4-2 Harvard). One kid (white) was accepted at Stanford, not Harvard, with perfect test scores and minimal ECs (and not a lot of peer respect). One kid (African-American) was accepted at Stanford, not Harvard, with a decent record at a very strong school, and significant athletics but not Div 1 quality. One kid (Asian) was accepted at Harvard, not Stanford, with great everything and ECs out the wazoo – a run-the-school type. All of the cross-admits were fabulous students near (but in only two cases at) the tops of their classes, which were fancy private schools for some and urban or suburban publics for others. Two of them had extensive and deep ECs, two were math/science nerds with unimpressive ECs (including the only other Asian in the pool), and two were humanities-oriented intellectual types with unimpressive ECs. The two Stanford-only applicants were African-Americans who were accepted SCEA and didn’t apply anywhere else. They were both all-around solid candidates (strong students, significant ECs with a lot of dedication, but no national honors or anything; one was a legacy). </p>

<p>The two somewhat puzzling choices were Stanford’s, but only one was a URM, and ECs did not seem significant for either.</p>

76

<p>@brendanww, I like your tone better since everything has a point now. I may have to break my replies into pieces since I am on the road.</p>

<p>Risk money is the money that you can lose. So you don’t really risk your life savings to practice something. Many people are either broke or in jail by doing so, as you can see on Wall Street.</p>

77

<p>I don’t know much about Wisconsin’s high schools, even I had been in Madison for good 6 years as a graduate student. However, for the class of 2012, Harvard enrolled 11 and Princeton enrolled 9 from Wisconsin ( hate not to know how many Stanford had), it was probably not too difficult to pick these many from the entire Wisconsin by anyone for any reasons. I am sure that there were way more than 20 people with SAT scores of 2300+ and 3 perfect SAT II’s scores in Wisconsin. </p>

<p>I know New Jersey high schools very well, from the poorest to the most powerful ones. For the class of 2012, Harvard enrolled 57 from New Jersey, four powerful high schools - two West Windsors, High tech and Bergen Academies - sent only one to Harvard, where totally they might have over 100 students with SAT’s over 2300 + perfect SAT II’s (There were at least 10 USAMO qualifiers). </p>

<p>However, a crappy public high school (ranked 70s in New Jersey) near me sent three to Harvard that year, and this year the school sent two. Harvard really liked this school for some reasons, but the number one kid this year was rejected by Harvard, and he is going to Princeton. For all those kids I know (about 50+ went to HYPS+ ivies), he is a really good one in years.</p>

78

<p>It’s odd that you should make that distinction. A school called the University School of Milwaukee is the source of most Wisconsin Harvard kids. I know an interviewer (and it’s not a one time grabbed a coffee source but a relative of mine) who does one region of the state that has reported that school has an in and that aside from 1-2 students in middle of nowhere Wisconsin, most of the Harvard kids come from that school.</p>

<p>I am sure that it is that way in New Jersey, but it’s a whole different ball game out here. New Jersey is located closer to the Ivy League, there is more of a geographical necessity for students to get in and for the Universities to know about about the students. Most people in Wisconsin don’t give a damn about anything other than UW-Madison, the pride and glory of the state. It’s a bit of a different situation. But even then, east coast schools like Phillips exeter and andover still send in excess of 20 students to Harvard in a given year.</p>

<p>Test scores are not uniform across the states. I advise you look at the qualifying scores by state for NMSQT. Wisconsin has consistently had one of the lowest qualifying scores. And the worst schools are the rural ones that do not even have enough students to play the odds game with the ivy league. There are crappy publics with a few thousand kids in Milwaukee and good public schools in Madison that send some of the top of each class to the Ivy League.</p>

<p>I know a few kids from the West Windsor schools, one of 'em is at West Point and the others are in Ivy League schools. They do very well at Model UN conferences.</p>

<p>Either way, we’ve gone off topic by this point. Your point about risk money is moot. It’s always a risk to apply to these schools from the applicant-side. As for the Universities, taking kids that have slaved enough to get perfect scores on three SAT ii’s is not much of a financial risk given they have measured other parts of the application appropriately.</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Since that I don’t have the data for Stanford, and I agree with JHS that HYPS practice the same religion when it comes to admission; I am using Harvard’s data to demonstrate that HYPS do not care about the scores.</p>

<p>Out of 59 enrolled (from NJ) at Harvard for the Class of 2012, TEN were from the following schools:</p>

<p>Total Avg. SAT (2400) – School</p>

<p>1574 – Wayne Valley High<br>
1573 – Morristown High
1566 – Somerville High
1547 – Mt. Olive High
1484 – Collingswood Sr High
1459 – Jackson Memorial High
1425 – Bergenfield High</p>

<p>Those schools are as bad as any schools in Wisconsin. I see kids in honors math class who don’t know 10-4+6 is before get into those schools. But, Harvard loves those kids. The religion they practice is beyond my comprehension, where I can only see the whole thing is economically and politically motivated.</p>

<p>P.S.</p>

<p>The four schools where only one enrolled at Harvard:</p>

<p>Total Avg. SAT (2400) – School</p>

<p>2078 – High Tech
2044 – Bergen Acads
1824 – Wwindsor-Plainsboro South
1766 – Wwindsor-Plainsboro North</p>